Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Does Shareware hurt professional software development?
Message-ID: <24952@usc.edu>
Date: 28 May 90 06:40:26 GMT
References: <1990May26.223843.19350@ameristar> <24937@usc.edu> <1410@faatcrl.UUCP>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 67

In article <1410@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>>In terms of sales though, freeware/shareware has not really impacted us
>>as much as low-priced commercial software such as Baud Bandit. And it
>>doesn't matter that Baud Bandit has a horrid manual. It is still
>>commercial software that is on dealer's shelves, unlike freeware/shareware.
>
>The pricing of BaudBandit did seem a bit of a low-ball for commercial telecom
>software.  IMHO, it is just commercially distributed Shareware, it's lack of
>emulations are of no threat to Atalk-III, at least to those who would consider
>Atalk-III in the first place, true?

True. BaudBandit is pretty close to "commercially distrubuted Shareware", and
indeed is not a contender whan it comes to ANY kind of emulation.  It is quite
OK, though if the only thing you do is access BBSs or People-Link.

Shareware/PD programs have tended to be "niche" programs: VT100 and Handshake
do good VT100, VLT does good Tek emulation, BaudBandit/JRComm do good
file transfers with BBS systems.  We try to handle all those things in one
single package. And that what commercial usually do.

>
>>We found from interwiews that most people that use freeware/shareware wouldn't
>>have considered buying a commercial product anyway. On the other hand, there 
>>are a lot of people that wouldn't consider using software that doesn't come in
>>a package with a manual and a "promise" of support.
>
>I agree.  And that is why I elected to go the Shareware route, because some
>people won't consider commerical prices.

Gee, you see on how much we agree on? Isn't that special? :-)

>>The thing that I'd like to tell people is that they should forget shareware
>>if their purpose is making ANY money. Shareware doesn't pay and this is even 
			     ^^^^^^^^^
>>more true for a small market like the Amiga.  The only two Shareware flukes
>>(PC-File and PC-WRITE) have been in the PC Market in the mid-eighties and
>>they've never been emulated since.  People just don't want to pay for 
>>things they know they can "keep" for free.
>
>Well, I don't agree here.  Although I don't intend to get rich, I'm not 
>to lose money either.  If the revenue can pay for my investment and future
>equipment, as well as some pocket change I'll be happy.

Note that I hightlighed "ANY money".  You think you're making some money,
because you can get some revenues for investment and future equipment, BUT
take a look at what you are actually paying yourself, before you say that 
you're not losing money.  I'd bet that if you count the hours you've spent on
your program vs. the money that came in, your're paying yourself less than
minimum wage. I.e., you're really not making any profit at all, since you'd
get more money with ANY other kind of legal job that does not require any
kind of special knowledge.  It might be sad, BUT shareware is not profitable
for 99.9% of the programmers that use it.

>but, more importantly,
>I hope the quality of work that I have produced will enable me to do this on
>a full-time basis in the future.  

That's possible, but unlikely.  It is easier to make a name for yourself
by commercial "self-publishing" than shareware publishing.  The former one
does require a larger initial investment in time and money though, and of
course there are no assurances.  I probably just happened to be lucky.

-- Marco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=